The experience of the last two decades would suggest that a
new international reform category has emerged, the agency. Although
not always consistent with local titles, the agency label
has been associated with public sector arrangements observed
in countries as diverse as England (O’Toole and Jordan, 1995),
Sweden (Fortin,1996; Gustafsson and Rhodes, 1989), Portugal,
Japan (Oliver 2000), The Netherlands (Ter Bogt, 1999; Van der
Knaap et al., 1997), Latvia (Pollitt et al., 2001; Pollitt, 2002),
New Zealand (Boston et al., 1996), Canada (Aucoin, 1996), and
Australia (Armstrong, 1998; Rowlands, 2002) - to name just a
few examples. With endorsement from international organizations
such as the OECD and World Bank, agencies have also
been enforced upon developing countries such as Ghana and
Tanzania as a condition for financial aid (Talbot and Caulfield,
2002; Minogue et al., 1999). Their spread has been the consequence
of seeming universal agreement that they are a good
thing. This has been reflected in OECD reports which have
recognized the “greater use of agencies or their equivalents
…(for) purposes that include better service, greater efficiency, a
focus on results, as well as clearer accountability relationships
between the institution and government” (OECD, 1997a:19).
Agencies have not only been deemed appropriate reform accessories
for all kinds of political administrative contexts, but they
have apparently also been able to bring about a range of benefits
in these different circumstances.